No Plans to take X, S (or 3) above 100kWh

[scaesare]

The issue is, the market for the less expensive Model 3 is magnitudes larger than the relatively small size of the market that needs a larger battery.
Add to that, when you improve infrastructure, some of that market for large battery packs goes away.

There will always be some edge cases of people that need more range. But if the goal is to replace the largest percentage of gas cars with electric, you need to spend more of your effort going after the larger market.

I don't see this as an edge case, really.

Many utility items a person may purchase will have typical uses and occasional uses. I drive far more nails than I pull with my hammer. But it's often enough that when I need to pull a nail, I need that hammer to have a claw on it. I very rarely need a roof nailer, so I'll rent that one.

The same situation arises with a vehicle. I drive <100 miles a day 95% of the time. But on the several occasions a year I take road trip in the cold, need to throw bikes or skis on the roof, tow something, etc... , I need more than 150 miles of range between charges. It's a common enough critical occurrence, that it factors in to a buying decision. I only need a moving truck very rarely, so I'll rent that one.

 

[sandpiper]

You seem to have very strong feelings about this. You're repeating your point quite often, even several posts in a row. Yes, we agree. Cold weather really does need a bigger battery for ideal road trips. I don't see people disagreeing with you. Where we disagree is how important that is. Just counting America, hundreds of millions of people live in southern climates and the coasts where that extreme cold does not happen. Diverting engineering resources from mass sales to there to accelerate larger batteries may not make sense from either a business or mission perspective.

Yes I do. Because it drives me nuts when people, like our Australian friend, keep chiming in with "We're good. We don't need any more.". I have no illusion that my whining on this forum will change Tesla's direction - but it certainly can't hurt. California is it's own little bubble sometimes and there needs to be some voices, no matter how inconsequential, from outside.

In any case, larger batteries is all about individual cell capacity: chemistry and geometry. They can't shoehorn any more cells into the box. The cells WILL get better. Assuming that Tesla sets 100kwh as a max capacity, that implies that Tesla will be opting to reduce weight and cost by cutting cells out of the box. That's great, but they also need to keep putting out a max size battery, that will continue to increase in capacity as the cells themselves improve.

 

[Dax279]

Might be old news, but I just read that Elon stated the 3 will not have a 100khw battery as the space does not allow for one.

 

[DarkMatter]

An anecdote: one of the people on my team is a perfect candidate for a Leaf. He drives a long enough commute that he's spending a fair bit on fuel, but short enough that he can almost always do it round trip without even charging. There is charging at work so any time he didn't have to turn around and go straight home, he would arrive at his destination with more than half the battery. He has a pickup truck that he likes, and his wife is retired and has a Camry. He still worried about range because he occasionally would want to go to a destination sixty miles the opposite direction of work, then home, after work. If he did that he would have to rent a car. There is an Enterprise across the street.
How often has this trip actually happened? Once in the past three years. Renting a car would have worked fine, or taking his wife's car that day. Yet instead in that time he has spent thousands of dollars on fuel that he could have saved, all because of perceived range. Painting the corners with battery capacity needs to happen eventually. Right now there are many more sales which can happen if we improve costs and infrastructure instead.

 

[blackscraper]

I just don't understand the mindset of "I don't need it, so you don't either" or "if you whine about this, then it is not for you". Elon set out to build a "no compromise" sedan run on battery. What is “no compromise", it means "no compromise" when compared against ICE cars. I consider having to take an unnecessary half-an-hour stop as compromise, I consider having to turn the cabin temperature down to 15 degree as compromise, I consider spending an hour more on the road for a 600KM trip charging as compromise. Yeah, I can live with that, however, why not an improvement?

As per going to Algonquin from where I live, a 250KM one way trip, easily manageable as a day trip. Of course doable even for a 60KWH battery, however, you'd HAVE TO stop for a charge (even for 90D I am driving), lengthening your already-long day for another half an hour, whether the superchargers are convenient enough. No matter how fast the superchargers are, you just can't save the overhead of veering off the highway and coming back again. That, only a larger battery pack will do. With 120KWH battery pack, you can comfortably go and come back without WASTING the additional time. This is convenience.

People who spend more than 120K on a family car has the reason to believe the car will work 99% of time, if not 100%, when you would like it to.

 

[ohmman]

People who spend more than 120K on a family car has the reason to believe the car will work 99% of time, if not 100%, when you would like it to.

I am with you on the rest of your post, but not this line. I don't agree with the "I spent X so I deserve Y" argument that is so often used in this forum. It's an argument that falls apart when tested in other realms.

A Bugatti Veyron is about $1.5 million, but I can't load a 4x8 piece of plywood in it. And after spending that much! An F-150 can easily haul a piece of ply. For example.

 

[calisnow]

You seem to have very strong feelings about this. You're repeating your point quite often, even several posts in a row. Yes, we agree. Cold weather really does need a bigger battery for ideal road trips. I don't see people disagreeing with you. Where we disagree is how important that is. Just counting America, hundreds of millions of people live in southern climates and the coasts where that extreme cold does not happen. Diverting engineering resources from mass sales to there to accelerate larger batteries may not make sense from either a business or mission perspective.

Well I agree with him even if you don't. Also, we have no idea what Tesla's engineering resource limits are. All we know is what they say in the press. They may have plenty more ability to ramp up battery production than we are aware of. And finally I would not be surprise to see a 120 kwhr S net year with 2170 cells. There will be few sales - it won't take away much Model 3 resource production and it will help defend the S's king of the road crown.

 

[ecarfan]

larger batteries is all about individual cell capacity: chemistry and geometry. They can't shoehorn any more cells into the box. The cells WILL get better. Assuming that Tesla sets 100kwh as a max capacity, that implies that Tesla will be opting to reduce weight and cost by cutting cells out of the box. That's great, but they also need to keep putting out a max size battery, that will continue to increase in capacity as the cells themselves improve.

And there we mostly agree. The cells will get better. But it is a gradual process and an uneven one. As you noted upthread, Elon and JB have talked many times about how cells improve about 5% annually on average.

When Elon said Tesla will stop at 100kWh he did not say "stop forever". He was doing the right thing by deliberately reducing expectations that in the near future there would be another significant increase in Tesla maximum pack capacity.

I'm not telling you that no one needs a bigger battery than 100kWh. Of course some people do. But when you look at the car market overall, it's a relatively small percentage of the market. The US daily average driving distance is 40 miles per day. Before you jump all over that figure, that is the "average" and of course many trips are longer. See National Household Travel Survey Daily Travel Quick Facts | Bureau of Transportation Statistics . That source does not specify if it is the mean or the median figure. Even in very cold temps most Teslas can go over 100 miles without recharging.

So current Tesla battery capacities are sufficient for the majority of trips people take even in cold temperatures. There is certainly a sizable fraction of all trips in all areas Tesla sells into where the largest current pack size is not sufficient. We are in the early stages of the EV revolution. Battery energy density will improve over time and costs will fall and EVs will increasingly be seen as a realistic "only car" choice for more and more people.

Tesla will offer higher capacity packs in the future. But I doubt they will do so in 2017.

 

[scaesare]

I am with you on the rest of your post, but not this line. I don't agree with the "I spent X so I deserve Y" argument that is so often used in this forum. It's an argument that falls apart when tested in other realms.

A Bugatti Veyron is about $1.5 million, but I can't load a 4x8 piece of plywood in it. And after spending that much! An F-150 can easily haul a piece of ply. For example.

But, to use the "just build more/faster superchargers" argument, that Veyron can haul 2 half pieces of ply twice as fast!

 

[croman]

Tesla should just let people plan in the dark and then get angry later? That doesn't work in the long run. Tesla needs to open up its communication not shut down. This kind of style didn't work for the Communists.

Apparently there are a lot of fans of Communism here

 

[TexLaw]

I am with you on the rest of your post, but not this line. I don't agree with the "I spent X so I deserve Y" argument that is so often used in this forum. It's an argument that falls apart when tested in other realms.

A Bugatti Veyron is about $1.5 million, but I can't load a 4x8 piece of plywood in it. And after spending that much! An F-150 can easily haul a piece of ply. For example.

+1 to that. In fact, I dare say that very few cars or none suit every driver 99% of the time. I'll go even further and along the lines of your Veyron example. Once one gets above a certain price point, it's an absolute, as such vehicles tend to specialize.

This isn't a matter of "if I don't need it, neither do you." It's a limitation imposed by the very technology we're embracing, and it will involve both time and market specialization.

Elon only mentioned the S and X. There's more to come.

 

[Gwgan]

I want to drive my amazing and comfortable EV to Quebec, the ride making up a good part of the trip, but fear the charging desert between here and there, especially in cold or bad weather. Sure, I could take the pickup, or rent a car like I did back before I had a Tesla and rented a car for a more comfortable ride to Montreal, but now my more comfortable ride is my X. It's a want, not a need, for this 1% issue, but it looms large and makes me want a bigger battery.

 

[Zythryn]

We're not talking about edge cases. Right now, even if the prices were the same, the inconveniences of even a 100kwh EV are such that most people in the Northern US and certainly Canada, couldn't buy one as their only vehicle. Most people who are laying down a lot of money simply don't want to compromise. Yes, yes.. rent another car when you need it. Really? How many people want to rent a car to make a 600km road-trip to see family?

We're in a bit of an echo chamber here. We're a bunch of enthusiasts who are willing to live with the shortcomings. This is not so for the wider populace. My wife, who is relatively enthusiastic about technology, would simply not buy a Tesla, even if it were the same price as a similar ICE.

I'm not saying that they won't succeed with the current battery offerings. And clearly a 150kwh battery is not practical right now. But, if the goal is to replace the ICE, then we need to keep bigger batteries on the front burner. Too many times Elon has said - "we don't need a bigger battery". He should stop telling customers what they need and start asking what they need.

You may not be an edge case, but you are definitely in the minority.
Now, if we were looking at only Canada, you may be in the majority, I don't know.
But in the U.S. the need to drive that far, combined with not having enough infrastructure, combined with northern states is pretty much North Dakota.

I live in Minnesota. While not Canada, our range gets hit hard too. In almost four years of not having access to a gas car I have not cut short or avoided any trips, and have actually taken a few I wouldn't normally (both summer and winter).

Now, some people have said that some are saying "if I don't need the range no one does". In my case, and most if not all others, no one is saying that.
What I am saying is that the size of market than can afford and make use of a 200 mile cheaper Tesla is magnitudes bigger than the size of market that needs a bigger battery.
I am not saying that smaller market doesn't exist, just that it is a much smaller market.

 

[DarkMatter]

And finally I would not be surprise to see a 120 kwhr S net year with 2170 cells. There will be few sales ...

That exactly. It's not that nobody needs this. It's that Tesla is a small company. They need to focus their efforts. Elon is smart. If he says there are no plans for past 100 then there are good reasons for now. He's said things in the past that he's gone and changed in the future, and this may well be one of them. In the meantime the company almost certainly needs to spend resources on filling in the charging deserts and making the Model 3 a success. I would be very surprised to see a 120 before the Model 3 is at full production capacity.

 

[Shock-On-T]

Argh!!! Sydney, as in Sydney Australia? If so then I tell you what... I won't offer opinions on dodging kangaroos, and you don't offer opinions on the practicality of EVs in extreme cold weather!

I know all about the cold, I saw a documentary about it.

 

[sandpiper]

What I am saying is that the size of market than can afford and make use of a 200 mile cheaper Tesla is magnitudes bigger than the size of market that needs a bigger battery.
I am not saying that smaller market doesn't exist, just that it is a much smaller market.

I would be interested to see the sales breakdown between the large battery and small battery Teslas. RIght now, if you look at the US pre-owned vehicles, the large batteries vastly outnumber the small. You don't have to be much of a statistician to see realize that that implies that there is a substantial demand for vehicles with range above what's currently available. And that's among the enthusiasts who are more willing to live with the very real compromises.

I dispute that it's a small market. The #1 question I get asked is about range. There are a LOT of people who simply won't come across to EVs until the compromises have been largely eliminated. And that means that you should be able to go visit the in-laws in the next state at any time of year, without sitting for an hour to charge - just as you would with an ICE.

Tesla is getting away with it right now because most EV owners have another car available. But that won't work when they need to start digging deeper into the market.

Finally, there is a serious upcoming issue with the Model 3: supercharger congestion. I'm concerned that Tesla really isn't dealing with that very well. The love for the M3 is going to fade quickly when people have to wait in line for an hour at a SC, to charge for another hour. That's going to drive demand for larger batteries yet further, because people will want to avoid SCs like the plague. The only way to really do that is to buy the biggest battery that you can get.

Anyway... my point is not that there isn't demand for the smaller cars. There clearly is. But I think it's a mistake on our part to let Tesla off of the hook, when Elon says that "100 is good enough". There is a big market for the true no-compromise cars, that Tesla simply doesn't produce yet.

 

[scaesare]

And there we mostly agree. The cells will get better. But it is a gradual process and an uneven one. As you noted upthread, Elon and JB have talked many times about how cells improve about 5% annually on average.

When Elon said Tesla will stop at 100kWh he did not say "stop forever". He was doing the right thing by deliberately reducing expectations that in the near future there would be another significant increase in Tesla maximum pack capacity.

I'm not telling you that no one needs a bigger battery than 100kWh. Of course some people do. But when you look at the car market overall, it's a relatively small percentage of the market. The US daily average driving distance is 40 miles per day. Before you jump all over that figure, that is the "average" and of course many trips are longer. See National Household Travel Survey Daily Travel Quick Facts | Bureau of Transportation Statistics . That source does not specify if it is the mean or the median figure. Even in very cold temps most Teslas can go over 100 miles without recharging.

So current Tesla battery capacities are sufficient for the majority of trips people take even in cold temperatures. There is certainly a sizable fraction of all trips in all areas Tesla sells into where the largest current pack size is not sufficient. We are in the early stages of the EV revolution. Battery energy density will improve over time and costs will fall and EVs will increasingly be seen as a realistic "only car" choice for more and more people.

Tesla will offer higher capacity packs in the future. But I doubt they will do so in 2017.

I do agree, or hope, with you that Tesla will offer larger packs in the future, even if they don't right now.

What I disagree with is that either average, or median, trip numbers indicate that only a "small percentage" of the market need longer range than the daily numbers indicate.

While we can slice and dice what need means (after all, no body absolutely NEEDS a car... there are folks today who use livestock for transportation), I maintain is reasonable to assume that significant factors in a vehicle buying decision for most people includes accommodating:

- typical weekday/weekend driving range needs in the region they live in
- max range for road trips (vacation, visiting family, etc...) on annual basis to regions they may not live in
- max number of passengers they expect
- max cargo room they may need (factoring in roof/hitch cargo options)
- needed specific utility (AWD, towing ability, etc...)
- wanted goodies (nav, bun warmers, gizmos, etc...)

Those have to fit within the envelope of:

- Total acquisition cost
- Planned operating costs

In some cases it may be reasonable to assume a secondary vehicle for specific needs. If you need to haul stuff, a truck may be your only choice, but it might not meet your criteria for being a daily driver. But outside of such specific need, you need to address pretty much all of the above for most people if you want to sell them their only vehicle, even if some of those needs represent the minority of their use.

Some will argue "rent a car for your road trip needs", but to be honest, I think 90% of people won't be readily willing to do that. Yes for a moving truck when they move every 8 years, or renting a car when they've taken a plane trip, but I don't think folks want to head to Hertz every few months when they drive to visit Grandma, or head skiing in the winter.

So if by "small percentage" of folks, you are not including the northern 3rd of the US, Canada, quite a few countries in Europe, etc... that are affected significantly by the cold, needing a cargo box, driving with significant elevation change, etc..., then I must disagree.

I also disagree that it's sufficient that "Even in very cold temps most Teslas can go over 100 miles without recharging.".. if you think that folks will stop to charge for 40 minutes for every hour and a half they drive, then you know people much more patient than I...

 

[DarkMatter]

Funny, I've had the opposite experience. Of the last four friends who have taken substantial road trips, two rented a car for the trip. More than once I've had friends who rented a 7 passenger SUV when they have family in town, to replace their small sedan. There is a strong efficiency argument for not hauling around stuff you don't need 99% of the time.

 

[scaesare]

Funny, I've had the opposite experience. Of the last four friends who have taken substantial road trips, two rented a car for the trip. More than once I've had friends who rented a 7 passenger SUV when they have family in town, to replace their small sedan. There is a strong efficiency argument for not hauling around stuff you don't need 99% of the time.

My suspicion is that they are in the minority I referred to.

Not to say it doesn't make economic and ecologic sense. But for the mass population that Elon is targeting EV's at, I'm not sure they will be as enlightened a your friends.

 

[bob_p]

There will always be a market for longer range.

While Tesla has had the longest range EVs on the market, they don't necessarily need to maintain that in order to be successful. It's very possible Tesla could allow other competitors to have longer range, if Tesla doesn't believe those markets are large enough.

Tesla is collecting data from every car they sell. They are also controlling the build out of their supercharger network and helping with the installation of destination chargers. I suspect their data may show that the S 100D's range (335 rated miles) may be enough to meet the vast majority of their customers' needs, especially with their planned rollout of additional chargers.

Though if they determine their customers still need longer range, when they have enough 2170 battery production to cover the Model S/X sales, we could see a large capacity pack in a couple of years.